Should David Shuster be fired?

Agree with all of the above. He was caught up in a moment and used a turn of phrase that has become part of the American lexicon and has zero sexual connotation in context. And, in fact, an argument could be made that the context in which he said it could appear, to many people, as correct. Operative word being "appear."

Yes, it was in retrospect a dumb choice of words. He apologized for it, both on the air and to the Clinton family personally, and he's been suspended. It should end there. Pursuit of anything stronger is not a wise battle for Hillary to fight.

While a firing would not be commensurate with the offense (I voted "No"), I can relate to Hillary's ire a bit.

Chelsea may be in her late 20s but she's still and always be her child. Many people are far more offended when they perceive you attacked people they love than when you attack THEM directly. She said something to that effect.

Allow me to demonstrate:

A. I call the OP a "bitch". Likely, he'll reply "LOL" or "YOU need a bitchslap".

B. I call his mother names. Likely (especially if he's REALLY Italian) he will take offense. BTW, I am sure the OP's mother is exemplary in every way.

Maybe not fired (was he? I thought it was a temporary suspension.)

On the other hand perhaps these kind of comments suggests a sort of sexism on the part of people who should show (perrhaps) a tad bit more professional integrity about the nature of their "commentary".

If it was the Clinton's son working on behalf of the campaign would they have used this kind of terminology, or have even found something wrong with a son playing a similar part?

Why should Shuster, be held to a different standard, than anyone else?
Others have been fired, for echoing tasteless remarks,so why shouldn't he be fired also. It's not so much whom, it's pointed at,but that he felt a need to be nasty. Leave that behavior to the politician's themselves,I don't expect froma reporter,unless it's a radio show,Michael Savage or Fatboy Limbaugh.
C.B.

I voted "NO" because there was no option for "no."

I don't think he should be fired. Far more insipid things are said by heads in the media every day.

I also think Hillary has the right to be offended and not appear on MSNBC if she chooses. They said something vulgar and offensive about her daughter. It's her right to be offended. That doesn't mean he ought to be fired.

I have MSNBC on all the time, I love Hardball but don't like when Shuster fills for Chris Matthews. I just dont like him, but I dont think he should be fired either. The Clintons daughter is not a little girl anymore, if she can be paraded around for her mother's political benefit she can take a remark from a political pundit. I've heard Pat Buchanan say much worse things while on MSNBC. I don't agree with Pat politically but I still find him very enjoyable while on TV, but what Shuster said wasn't the worst thing to be said on TV.

Which is my point.. "pimp" was used in the same terminology as "parade"

Hillary is reaching to take offense at this. Campaigns are often a family affair. I think what Kerry said (and I voted for him) about homosexuals, that they would feel like Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, was just being herself. That was more inappropriate than anything that Dave Shuster said. Kerry was trying to be hypocritical of Cheney's views on gay marriage, knowing he had a gay daughter. Yet it was disrespectful for an opponent to take his daughter's personal private life and put it on the national spotlight that way. She wasn't consulted nor asked about it and that was clearly about her sexual orientation.

They talked about using Chelsea Clinton to make phone calls for her mother and that the national spotlight is still shielding her somewhat on her political involvement. That's a valid question. Dave doesn't have the charisma or charm, but saying that someone was being pimped out is used to restore a car "pimp my ride" or they pimped him out to get more business. It's easily calling someone a go-getter or a top sales person.

It just doesn't have the negative connotation that some old-ass mofo asked "don't you think that's going too far to call someone's child." She's 28 years old. Hillary was pimping out her husband in S. Carolina and she pimped out her daughter to make calls for to superdelegates and it hasn't hit the headlines.

I'm sorry but she's looking for offense for a questionable choice of words, because she ate a lot of crow for her own choice of words about King/Johnson and wants to have the same press coverage where she's not the only one.

Hillary is not a victim and I think her "softer" teary side is as frabricated as her tears were before New Hampshire. I'm a chic, though, so I think that is manipulative on her part. Hillary didn't take offense until some other on-air old-fart took offense at Shuster, first and she ran with it.

It's all theater. Oh Hillary, we'll apologize, don't pull out of the debates. She wants that coverage, where they had to apologize to her, just to get her to debate. Trust it's a facade to get coverage to make her look more sympathetic. Just like that stupid assertion by her campaign is pushing -- they are getting away from Hillary being the inevitable experienced candidate, that Obama is "establishment candidate" because he got endorsements of the establishment like Kennedy. That's right, they said Hillary is not the establishment candidate, Barrack is. Every person that heard that has laughed on camera.

No, Dave doesn't need to be fired, he doesn't need to be suspended. It's not going to have the effect on superdelegates that Hillary fears. Hillary's camp is more concerned that the Dave's statement is claiming she's pimping out her daughter, the superdelegates they are trying to court won't want the negative press that they had a hand in "exploiting her child" and lose superdelegate votes. It's paranoid and it's fabricated martyrdom.

I feel that he should be fired because he would not never thought of making that comment if it was a CALEB Clinton instead of Chelsea Clinton. Simply put, the comment was made with the full intenetion of having a sexual conotation and THAT is what is completely unacceptable.

Are you actually implying that the Clintons are having their daughter do sexual favors for the delegates!?! Because otherwise it is pretty common for members of the candidates families to make phone calls to people asking them to support their parents. It is not her fault that people know who Chelsea Clinton is whereas they may not be aware of who Jack McCain or Tagg Romney are.

If he had said they'd whored her out, i'd be less meh about it, if not still indifferent.

I'd have thought that wasn't as offensive these days in the context it seems

Three words...FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

What has happened to it? No one can say anything anymore without having to apologize. Let whomever say whatever and if he or she gets ratings low enough to take them out then so be it, but really, it was his way of getting things across and if you don't like it, don't tune in.

That's right... Cheney was too busy trying to put her back into the closet than actually let her see the light of day.

I agree that MSNBC overreacted. A lot worse things have been said about Clinton during this election process. It's a shame that intelligent people would have to stoop to cheap shots to begin with in order to get a point across. You'd think people would have the common sense not to do it. Has nothing to do with being PC, but just treating people with some kind of respect regardless of the circumstances.

Actually, the Clintons are trying to have it both ways...using their daughter to talk to voters AND call superdelegates, and yet she is "OFF-LIMITS" to the press......Why?

I'm sure it's not so much that she's off-limits to the press, as the way the press chose to portray it.

Politicians have routinely gotten their children to be active participants in their campaigns. This is the first time I've heard it referred to as "pimping out their daughters."

Unless you are saying that only the Clintons are sleazy for having their daughter campaign for them...

How do you feel about his apology? And if he's never said anything like that before, should he be given another chance?